Lessons Learned in rapidly evolving operational environments

Learning organizations can be defined as those that implement systems for learning from experience or aim to improve the systems they already have. These organizations typically follow three basic stages:

1. Identification — Collect learning from experiences.
2. Action — Take action to change existing ways of doing things based on the learning.
3. Institutionalization — Communicate the change so that relevant parts of the organization can benefit from the learning.

These stages form the foundation of an effective Lessons Learned process, ensuring that valuable experiences are assessed and, when necessary, integrated into the organization’s practices.¹

The term Lessons Learned is broadly used to describe people, things, and activities related to the act of learning from experience to achieve improvements. For NATO, Lessons Learned (LL) is essential to improve performance, reduce risks, increase efficiency, and enhance operational effectiveness. This is achieved through NATO’s LL capability, which constitutes a core component of NATO’s organizational learning and consists of the following key elements:

• Mindset — A culture that enables and encourages learning from others and sharing knowledge across the organization.
• Leadership — Effective decision-making, emphasizing the value of the NATO LL Capability and the creation of a learning environment.
• Structure — Designated and skilled LL personnel throughout the organization.
• Process — A common LL process.
• Tools — Technology that supports collection, storage, and sharing of LL information.
• Training — Providing personnel the skills and knowledge to fulfill their LL roles effectively.
• Information Sharing — The will to submit, receive, and reuse LL information that is reliable and credible.

The common LL process, outlined above, follows the three basic stages of learning described earlier: identification, action, and institutionalization. The process comprises two phases and a set of component steps, as outlined below. It systematically processes observed issues arising from an activity until either a Lesson Learned is reached, or not taken forward for institutionalization for defined reasons.²

In fast-evolving operational environments, NATO acknowledges that a flexible yet structured approach to LL is necessary. In such situations, the process must be adapted to address unexpected issues rapidly, to prevent undesirable outcomes that could jeopardize achievement of priority objectives or hinder an adversary’s  progress. The abbreviated LL Process should achieve as minimum the following:²

• Clear understanding of the observed issue.
• Rapid analysis to identify root cause and select the most effective remedial action. A remedial action is an activity or set of activities that corrects an issue identified for improvement or facilitates the implementation of a best practice.
• Streamlined decision-making and communication between relevant authorities to implement the action quickly.
• Confirmation that the remedial action resolves the issue, even if full validation is not possible within the timescales.
• Regular information sharing with affected parties to keep them updated and allow for necessary adjustments.
• Rapid dissemination of successful actions to allow affected parties to resume activities immediately.

Looking at ongoing conflicts, the importance of an adaptable LL process is evident. RAND research from 2025 on Ukraine’s defense highlights that the pace of technological development and the evolution of warfighting is unprecedented in recent history, underscoring the need for fast and effective LL processes.  RAND recommends formalizing LL practices by leveraging experienced personnel to brief new units as they rotate to frontline positions, and prioritizing lessons learned implementation within more operationally experienced units. A approach that aims to foster a culture of learning by example, which can then be extended to the wider force, while minimizing the costs and inefficiencies associated with large-scale implementation.³

In March 2026, representatives of the Ukrainian Armed Forces highlighted the importance of aligning training activities more closely with operational realities, including relocating portions of basic training to Ukraine to accelerate the integration of combat experience into force development.⁴  This approach was reflected in the Swedish Armed Forces exercise Aurora 26, conducted in spring 2026, where Ukrainian units contributed frontline operational experience while acting as the opposing force (OPFOR), focusing on leveraging their expertise in drone operations.⁵

Both NATO frameworks and operational experience from Ukraine highlight the challenge of executing the Lessons Learned process at the speed, accuracy, and scale required to achieve operational advantage. This underscores the need for technology-enabled approaches capable of supporting fast-evolving operational environments. As operational structures and command relationships may evolve rapidly in response to changing conditions, digital support systems must also be sufficiently flexible to adapt to organizational change rather than being constrained by static hierarchies or predefined processes.